Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is made in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 12/04/2025. This action is made non-final.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1 and 20 are drawn to a method (i.e., process), and Claim 11 is drawn to a system, which are all within the four statutory categories. (Step 1 – Yes, the claim falls into one of the statutory categories).
Step 2A analysis – Prong One:
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for provider prioritization, comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, provider data including historical claim information from each of one or more providers;
applying, by the one or more processors, a model to the historical claim information received from each of the one or more providers to generate a respective expected number of claims for each of the one or more providers;
normalizing, by the one or more processors, the respective expected number of claims for each of the one or more providers;
determining, by the one or more processors and based on the normalized respective expected number of claims, a respective claim likelihood score for each of the one or more providers; and
ranking, by the one or more processors, the one or more providers based on each provider's respective claim likelihood score;
Scheduling, by the one or more processors and based on the ranking, maintenance of the provider data stored in one or more databases and associated with at least a portion of the one or more providers, at least the portion of the one or more providers each having a higher claim likelihood score relative to a remaining portion of the one or more providers; and
Allocating, by the one or more processors, data maintenance resources to only update the provider data associated with at least the portion of the one or more providers according to the scheduled maintenance, the data maintenance resources including processor power, memory, and communication networks connecting a server to the one or more databases storing the provider data.
The series of steps as recited above describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions, and therefore fall within the scope of certain methods of organizing human activity. Fundamentally, the method is that of a person gathering claim information from a provider and determining an expected number of claims to rank the providers through a series of instructions, which encompasses a person interacting with another individual including following rules or instructions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of managing interactions between people.
The series of steps as recited above also falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas, and describes concepts that can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Applying a model to the provider information, generating a respective expected number of claims for them, assigning the providers a score, ranking the providers, and scheduling maintenance can all be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea of a mental process.
Claims 11 and 20 recite/describe nearly identical steps as claim 1 (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Claim 20 also falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas, in addition to the abstract ideas set forth in claim 1. The concept of “applying an Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model to the historical claim information” recites mathematical calculations since the ARIMA model is a mathematical operation. Therefore, Claim 20 recites an abstract idea of a mathematical concept.
Step 2A analysis – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the following additional elements beyond the abstract idea: a computer, one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and allocating data maintenance resources including processor power, memory, and communication networks connecting a server to the one or more databases storing the provider data. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Specifically, the data maintenance resources include generic computing elements to be connected to a server, which is a generic computer functioning in its generic capabilities. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Specifically, the computer may be implemented as or incorporated into various devices, such as a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile device, a palmtop computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a communications device, a wireless telephone, a landline telephone, a control system, a camera, a scanner, a facsimile machine, a printer, a pager, a personal trusted device, a web appliance, a network router, switch or bridge, or any other machine capable of executing a set of instructions (specification par. 146). The processor is one or more processors, digital signal processors, application specific integrated circuits, field programmable gate arrays, servers, networks, digital circuits, analog circuits, combinations thereof, or other now known or later developed devices for analyzing and processing data (specification par. 147). The memory may also include external storage devices or databases including a hard drive, compact disc ("CD"), digital video disc ("DVD"), memory card, memory stick, floppy disc, universal serial bus ("USB") memory device, or any other device operative to store data (specification par. 148).
The limitation “allocating data maintenance resources” is recited at a high level of generality and is mere data gathering and output. Thus, the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. This limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements do not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology, rather the additional elements perform general computing functions and do not indicate how the particular combination improves any technology or provides a technical solution to a technical problem. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B analysis:
As discussed above in “Step 2A analysis – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in Independent Claims 1, 11, and 20 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in
the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well- understood, routine, [and]
conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic
computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
The applicant’s specification discloses: the computer may be implemented as or incorporated into various devices, such as a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile device, a palmtop computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a communications device, a wireless telephone, a landline telephone, a control system, a camera, a scanner, a facsimile machine, a printer, a pager, a personal trusted device, a web appliance, a network router, switch or bridge, or any other machine capable of executing a set of instructions (specification par. 146). The processor 502 is one or more processors, digital signal processors, application specific integrated circuits, field programmable gate arrays, servers, networks, digital circuits, analog circuits,
combinations thereof, or other now known or later developed devices for analyzing and processing data (specification par. 147).
As stated above, the limitation “allocating data maintenance resources” is recited at a high level of generality and is mere data gathering and output. Thus, the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. This limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-
understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Here, the claim limitations are similar to receiving and sending information
over a network (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); OJP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115
USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information
over a network); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll)(i)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the steps for provider prioritization amount to no more than using computer related devices to implement the abstract idea.
The use of a computer or processor to merely automate or implement the abstract idea cannot
provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) where mere instructions to
apply an exception does not render an abstract idea patent eligible). There is no indication that the
additional limitations alone or in combination improves the functioning of a computer or any other
technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a
particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of
additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: Independent claims - NO).
Dependent Claims
Dependent Claims 2-10, and 12-19 are directed towards elements used to describe the providers, the model, and the determination of the claim likelihood score. These elements include: each plurality of providers belonging to a grouping of providers, each grouping of providers being associated with a respective model, the model being a time-series model, the model being an Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model, a population of providers, an attribute of the population of providers, a claim likelihood score category, setting bounds of the categories, and adjusting the categories dynamically based on the population. Each of these elements amounts to a form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and mental processes, and therefore fall within the same abstract idea identified in independent claims 1 and 11, i.e., method for organizing human activity and mental processes.
Dependent Claims 5 and 15 recite “the time-series model is an Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model”, which falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas, in addition to the abstract ideas set forth in independent claims 1 and 11. The concept of applying an Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model to the claim information recites mathematical calculations since the ARIMA model is a mathematical operation. Therefore, Claims 5 and 15 recite an abstract idea of a mathematical concept. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract).
Dependent Claims 2-10 recite the additional element of a computer, specifically stating “the computer-implemented method…”. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Dependent Claims 12-19 do not include any additional elements. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The applicant’s specification discloses: the computer may be implemented as or incorporated into various devices, such as a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile device, a palmtop computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a communications device, a wireless telephone, a landline telephone, a control system, a camera, a scanner, a facsimile machine, a printer, a pager, a personal trusted device, a web appliance, a network router, switch or bridge, or any other machine capable of executing a set of instructions (specification par. 146).
The dependent claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) where mere instructions to apply an exception does not render an abstract idea patent eligible). There is no indication that the additional limitations alone or in combination improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: Dependent claims - NO).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the previous 101 rejection, Applicant argues that independent claims 1, 11, and 20 do not recite the abstract ideas of methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, or mathematical concepts. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Receiving provider data, applying a model to historical information, normalizing data, determining a score, ranking based on a score, and scheduling maintenance are all steps that can be performed in the human mind, thus making them abstract ideas. The method also recites data being exchanged between two people which would fall into the methods of organizing human activity category of abstract ideas, and the ARIMA model used to generate a number of claims recites a mathematical calculation using a formula, which also recites an abstract idea.
Applicant also argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application by providing a significant technical advantage over traditional approaches to data maintenance with the steps for scheduling data maintenance activities for providers with higher claim likelihood scores and allocating data maintenance resources to only update specific provider data, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The step for scheduling data maintenance is part of the abstract idea of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity because it recites steps that can be performed in the human mind and also requires interaction between people, therefore, the scheduling step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The step for allocating data maintenance resources does not integrate the abstract idea either because it is insignificant extra solution activity recited at a high level of generality, and the data maintenance resources include generic computing elements to be connected to a server, which is a generic computer functioning in its generic capabilities.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). The technological environment of Applicant’s claim is a general-purpose computer (See Specification [0143], [0144], [0145], [0146], [0147]).
The applicant also argues that the improvement to the technical field of database and resource management is analogous to the patent eligible claim in Example 37 of the Patent Eligibility Guidance, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 of Example 37 is not similar to the claimed invention because the example’s improvement to the technology involves an improved user interface, which the Applicant’s claims do not. Similarly, Claim 2 of Example 37, although eligible, does not contain an abstract idea, and therefore is not analogous to the Applicant’s claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS K VAN DUZER whose telephone number is (571)270-5832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 8-5 CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights